“Do you
realize what you have done?” Vladimir Putin demanded at the United Nations in
September. The question was a rebuke to the American-led bloc of countries that
initially viewed with optimism the Arab Spring, which began five years ago this
month, but has since given way to chaos and Islamist violence across
once-stable parts of the Middle East and North Africa. Those events, and much
else, look different when viewed from Russia than they do from the United
States, and a documentary that aired recently on Russian state television helps
explain the worldview behind Putin’s question.

The
two-hour-plus film, Miroporyadok (World Order), explores, in the words of
its narrator Vladimir Solovyov, “what is happening with us [Russians], what
sort of world we have inherited from our parents, and what sort of world we
will leave to our children.” Partly through interviews with the Russian
president himself, it also offers a window on Putin’s own realpolitik
perspective, one that I’ve found to be widely shared throughout Russia over
many years of living in the country—a worldview according to which international
relations consist of competing blocs of nations pursuing their interests, and
the violation of sovereignty is a recipe for instability. This stands in
contrast to Obama’s own position, which he stated at the UN two years ago, that
“sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an
excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye to slaughter.”

“I
believe,” Putin tells Solovyov, “that no one should ever impose any sort of
values he considers correct on anyone. We have our own values, our own
conceptions of justice.” Putin doesn’t name names here, but the implication is
clear throughout: World Order
endeavors to incriminate American foreign policy and place the blame for the
current chaos in the Middle East on the United States. The film’s
anti-Americanism is subtle but relentless, and the spin comes mostly from
omission of relevant facts. And though it originated within the Russian state
propaganda machine, some of its criticisms of wrongheaded U.S. policies and
blundering interventions in the Middle East since September 11, 2001, would
give American liberals, centrists, and even a few conservatives little cause
for dispute. Yet the documentary goes further, leaving the strong impression
that greedy, bungling, incorrigibly myopic conspirators “from across the ocean”
(a phrase Putin uses repeatedly in the film to describe the U.S. leadership)
bent on world domination are to blame; Russia comes off as unjustly demonized
and Russians themselves forced to suffer economically as a result.

The
last point is not stated, but is implied, and gives another clue about how the
world looks from Russia. For Russians, to a degree unthinkable in the United
States, foreign policy is also domestic policy, not least because their Near
Abroad includes Ukraine, with which their ties of blood, history, and culture
remain intimate. And thanks to multiple invasions of Russia during the 19th and
20th centuries, a preoccupation with national security and national pride
figure strongly in Russian politics, with the possibility of war not at all
remote. A philosophy of realpolitik—and not, say, values promotion—would come
naturally under the circumstances.

Indeed,
as the film tells it, the root of all international evils is the American
penchant for democracy-spreading, both subtle (via U.S. support for “color
revolutions” in the post-Soviet sphere) and overt (as in overthrowing Saddam
Hussein). Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declares that the Arab Spring
was fomented from abroad, disregarding the Middle Eastern region’s widespread
popular discontent with official corruption, political stasis, and lack of job
opportunities. The United States intervenes despite bitter experience within
living memory; the American director Oliver Stone appears onscreen to tell
viewers that “America didn’t learn the lesson of Vietnam, which is you
shouldn’t go around invading other countries.”

But
Putin denies chiding Obama directly at the UN for the consequences of the Arab
Spring. “I wasn’t saying this [to President Obama]” Putin tells Solovyov, but
to the constellation of leaders, both American and European, who have been
meddling in Muslim lands since 2001. “I have always been telling [these
leaders] that they have to act carefully. It’s wrong to impose one’s scheme ...
of ideas concerning good and evil, or in this case, good and democracy,” on
countries “with differing cultures, a different religion, with other
traditions. But frankly, no one listens, because they apparently consider
themselves infallible and great.” No
one, he adds, holds those leaders accountable, whatever the outcome. When an
“operation” produces the wrong results, Putin says, the (again, unnamed)
leaders in question just say, “Oh well. Next!” After all, “They’re great and
sitting across the ocean, the dollar is the world’s currency, they have the
biggest economy in the world.”

The
“operations” to which Putin refers include, of course, the 2003 Iraq war, which
Russia, France, and Germany opposed. Then-French President Jacques Chiraq,
Putin claims, even foresaw that terrorist attacks in Europe, resembling those
that occurred in Paris this year, could grow out of the anarchy that would
result from Saddam’s overthrow. Another is the imposition of a no-fly zone over
Libya in 2011 (to prevent the regime from using its air force to stage a massacre—a fact that goes unmentioned). The film replays video of
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remark, delivered with a callous
laugh, about Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi’s subsequent death—“We came, we
saw, he died!”—followed by footage of the tyrant’s brutal murder, which drives
home the real-life consequences of the intervention and its bloody aftermath.
(Eerily, the film also shows Qaddafi addressing Arab leaders at a 2011 Arab
League summit, and asking, after Saddam Hussein’s execution, “Who among you is
next?”)

The
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange also makes an appearance, citing cables
revealing U.S. efforts to undermine the regime of Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad—though American officials continue to maintain that Assad must go
eventually, the cables in question most likely concern Wikileaks revelations
made in 2006. The film shows Syrians lamenting the chaos the presumably
American-backed terrorists have unleashed. No mention is made of Assad’s
murderous crackdown on the demonstrations that set off the revolt, or of the
barrel bombs deployed against civilians to this day at great cost to civilian
life, or of the U.S. air campaign against ISIS.

But the
message of World Order, as the title
implies, extends geographically wider and historically further back than
America’s post-September 11 policies in the Middle East. As the film, and
presumably Putin, have it, the real problem today is not the rise of ISIS but
the breakdown in relations between Russia and the West. A key cause of this
conflict has been the eastward expansion of NATO since the Berlin Wall fell in
1989, which has brought with it the stationing of troops on Russia’s border
with the Baltics, plans to one day admit Ukraine (and Georgia), and, as an
eventual result, Russia’s intervention in Ukraine.

“Why
did [the West] support the coup?” Putin asks, using his term for the uprisings
that brought the ouster of then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.
He cites Western fears that Russia was trying to recreate the Soviet Union. “I
think many of our partners see they made a mistake, but just don’t want to
admit it. They took advantage of popular discontent not just with Yanukovych,
but going back to independence. ... Does anyone think things are better there
now?”

Few
would dispute Putin’s damning description of Ukraine’s post-Maidan straits:
“The standard of living has fallen catastrophically. ... What have they gotten
in return? Possibly [Ukrainians] will be allowed to travel to Europe without a
visa. And possibly not.”

But
Putin emphasizes that he does not blame Europeans for the policies of the
United States, since, in his view, they are nothing more than “vassals” taking
orders “from across the ocean,” at least as far as foreign policy goes. He
surely understands the relationship to be more complicated than that, but such
an approach places the blame for standoff between Russia and the West on
America, and lets him makes a direct overture to Europe. “We don’t expect our
European partners to give up their Euro-Atlantic orientation” but they would do
well to “unite with Russia” to resolve “economic, political, security, and
economic problems. ... We are ready to work with them and aren’t about to pout
about the sanctions,” he says.

Significantly,
though he never rules out cooperation, Putin makes no such overture to the
United States. Rather, the film closes with Solovyov asking him the question
used to tease viewers in the intro: Will there be war—World War III, in
particular?

Probably
not, Putin responds, as long as no crazy individual decides to use nuclear
weapons and start it. But just in case, “Russia will continue perfecting its
[nuclear] weapons. The nuclear triad forms the basis of our security policy. We
have never brandished our nuclear bludgeon, and never will, but it retains its
proper place and role in our military doctrine.”

The
upshot, according to World Order:
Putin considers possible a renewed relationship with Europe, but sees no such
likelihood with the United States. This is one area where the views from
Washington and Moscow aren’t so different—and that is bad news.

What
one notices first is the large amount of new construction, which suggests a
certain Israeli permanency against religious opposition, hatred and threats of
annihilation perhaps no other country has had to endure. Second are the many
prosperous Arab neighborhoods, which defies much of the propaganda broadcast to
the world about how Israelis mistreat Arabs and Muslims, locking them in
poverty.

About
half an hour’s drive from Jerusalem, I visit a plant that makes air-conditioning
parts. Moshe Lev-Ran, the international manager, who bears a slight resemblance
to actor Lorne Greene of the old “Bonanza” TV series, employs Jews and Muslims
who he says work together without any problems. Lev-Ran, who says he believes
in equal pay for all, thinks prosperity is the key to peace in the region. He
admits to a “left hand” (liberal) worldview and given the periodic outbursts of
violence by some who are better off than they were before the “occupation,” he
is likely engaging in wishful thinking that money is the key to peace.

It
seems that everyone in Israel has either a solution to the conflict, or a
suggestion for better communicating Israel’s position to the world. Martin
Sherman, executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies,
thinks the government spends too little — a fraction of 1 percent on public
diplomacy — allowing Israel’s detractors to dominate in the propaganda war.

Sherman
would offer generous economic incentives to Palestinian Arabs to emigrate and
seek a better life elsewhere, preserving the Jewishness of the Jewish state.
Under his proposal, those who refuse to leave would see their services reduced,
including electricity and water, which he sees as morally justifiable, since
Israel should have no obligation to sustain its enemies.

He
opposes the creation of a Palestinian state and thinks the rest of the world
should, too. “Why would the world accept another state that is misogynist and
homophobic?” he asks, adding, “Jews must realize that between the (Jordan)
River and the (Mediterranean) Sea there will be either Jewish or Muslim
sovereignty.

”

To
create a Palestinian state next to Israel, says Sherman, would lead to the
Lebanonization or balkanization of Israel. “There is no way Muslim Arabs will
accept a Jewish state.” Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said as much.

Geography
and demography are the central concerns of most Israelis. A trip to a
mountaintop near the Israeli settlement of Barkan in the West Bank provides a
dramatic view of “the three seas,” the Mediterranean, Sea of Galilee and Dead
Sea. This vantage point, within view of Ben Gurion Airport, illustrates just
how vulnerable Israel would be to terrorist rockets. Think Gaza times two. As
the saying goes, “Israel is a small country,” a truth that shocks many
first-time visitors.

The
Obama administration has asked both Israelis and Palestinians to “tone down”
the rhetoric that feeds the violence in Israel. It is unlikely that Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will
comply. Palestinian hatred of Jews permeates every facet of society and it
starts early. According to Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli research
institute studying Palestinian society, Palestinian textbooks, for example, “make
no attempt to educate for peace or coexistence with Israel. Instead Israel’s
right to exist is adamantly denied and the Palestinian war against Israel is
presented as an eternal religious battle for Islam.”

Western
governments must remove their blinders and support Israel’s attempt to curtail
and conquer this virus, not only for Israel’s sake, but out of self-interest,
because a strain of it is already spreading to Europe and America.

Zakaria:Why is
Middle America killing itself? The fact itself is probably the most important
social science finding in years. It is already reshaping American politics. The
Post’s Jeff Guo notes that the people who make up this cohort are “largely
responsible for Donald Trump’s lead in the race for the Republican nomination
for president.” The key question is why, and exploring it provides answers that
suggest that the rage dominating U.S. politics will only get worse.

For
decades, people in rich countries have lived longer. But in a well-known paper,
economists Angus Deaton and Anne Case found that over the past 15 years, one
group — middle-age whites in the United States — constitutes an alarming trend.
They are dying in increasing numbers. And things look much worse for those with
just a high school diploma or less. There are concerns about the calculations,
but even a leading critic of the paper has acknowledged that, however measured,
“the change compared to other countries and groups is huge.”

The
main causes of death are as striking as the fact itself: suicide, alcoholism,
and overdoses of prescription and illegal drugs. “People seem to be killing
themselves, slowly or quickly,” Deaton told me. These circumstances are usually
caused by stress, depression and despair. The only comparable spike in deaths
in an industrialized country took place among Russian males after the collapse
of the Soviet Union, when rates of alcoholism skyrocketed.

A
conventional explanation for this middle-class stress and anxiety is that
globalization and technological change have placed increasing pressures on the
average worker in industrialized nations. But the trend is absent in any other
Western country — it’s an exclusively American phenomenon. And the United
States is actually relatively insulated from the pressures of globalization,
having a vast, self-contained internal market. Trade makes up only 23 percent
of the U.S. economy, compared with 71 percent in Germany and 45 percent in
France.

Deaton
speculated to me that perhaps Europe’s more generous welfare state might ease
some of the fears associated with the rapid change. Certainly he believes that
in the United States, doctors and drug companies are far too eager to deal with
physical and psychological pain by prescribing drugs, including powerful and
addictive opioids. The introduction of drugs such as Oxycontin, a heroin-like
prescription painkiller, coincides with the rise in deaths.

But why
don’t we see the trend among other American ethnic groups? While mortality
rates for middle-age whites have stayed flat or risen, the rates for Hispanics
and blacks have continued to decline significantly. These groups live in the
same country and face greater economic pressures than whites. Why are they not
in similar despair?

The
answer might lie in expectations. Princeton anthropologist Carolyn Rouse
suggested, in an email exchange, that other groups might not expect that their
income, standard of living and social status are destined to steadily improve.
They don’t have the same confidence that if they work hard, they will surely
get ahead. In fact, Rouse said that after hundreds of years of slavery,
segregation and racism, blacks have developed ways to cope with disappointment
and the unfairness of life: through family, art, protest speech and, above all,
religion.

“You
have been the veterans of creative suffering,” Martin Luther King Jr. told
African Americans in his “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963: “Continue to work
with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.” Writing in 1960, King explained the issue in personal terms: “As my sufferings mounted I soon
realized that there were two ways that I could respond to my situation: either
to react with bitterness or seek to transform the suffering into a creative
force. ... So
like the Apostle Paul I can now humbly yet proudly say, ‘I bear in my body the marks of the Lord
Jesus.’” The
Hispanic and immigrant experiences in the United States are different, of
course. But again, few in these groups have believed that their place in
society is assured. Minorities, by definition, are on the margins. They do not
assume that the system is set up for them. They try hard and hope to succeed,
but they do not expect it as the norm.

The
United States is going through a great power shift. Working-class whites don’t
think of themselves as an elite group. But, in a sense, they have been,
certainly compared with blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and most
immigrants. They were central to America’s economy, its society, indeed its
very identity. They are not anymore. Donald Trump has promised that he will
change this and make them win again. But he can’t. No one can. And deep down,
they know it.